Diamond DA40: My perspective as a passenger

[NavAir]

Thanks for the feedback Steve. I was referring to both fit and finish as well as some of the parts for not being as durable/breaking. I also heard sometimes it takes a long(er) time to get parts.

The only parts which I've heard are maintenance issues are the plastic window latches, which some folks break off with some regularity, and the electric fuel pump (there is a more reliable model available now). I've not had any issues with either of them. There is a free Diamond Forum that has a lot of good info. You may want to check that out:

www.diamondaviators.net

Steve

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I'm at a juncture where I have narrowed my plane search down to either a DA40 or a SR20-G3 with Avidyne. While each marketing department can say whatever it wants regarding safety, I have two issues with the DA40 that I would love to hear from fellow pilots:

1. Due to the low wing load factor, it's a rough ride in turbulence.

I would actually characterize it as less "rough" but maybe affected more. The DA40 has a gentler rocking/rolling reaction to turbulence, mostly due to the longer wing, but it's not as sharp of a movement. I don't know if that makes sense, but that's the best way I can think of to describe it right now.

2. Diamond "cheaped out" on the materials with the DA40.

Dunno where you got that idea. They're made out of the same stuff structurally, though the DA40 has dual main spars and aluminum inner wing tanks, the latter of which Cirrus has finally added in 2014. My club hasn't had any issues with our 2006 DA40 as far as interior pieces, fit&finish, etc. However, I've heard that older Cirri DID have problems with that.

In reality, I don't think there's a significant difference between the two when it comes to this, unless you happen to be a Cirrus salesman (I have heard that assertion from them).

 

[spdracer888]

@flyingcheesehead, thanks for the info. Would you characterize the DA40 to be more gentle than say a 172 in turbulence? As for the fit and finish, a few folks mentioned that the seats are poorly cushioned and some folks had to use extra cushion for long trips. I really like the DA40 and it's a G1000 plateform.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jaybird180]

I've flown a 2003 -40 and similar vintage -22 and I would say the -22 presents better to someone stepping out of a modern automobile. THe -40 is well designed and simple and the cirrus has very good marketing and sex appeal.

The -40 doesn't have a life limit on the airframe and IIRC they recently accomplished the same on the Cirri. Time will tell on this. If buying new I would depreciate both airframes to $0 at 20 years....if I were buying either.

 

[VWGhiaBob]

Our club has a DA40, 2 182's, a 172 and a Saratoga. The DA40 has BY FAR the highest costs. Something is always wrong, and little things cost a bundle. This is a sample of 1, and maybe we got a lemon. But it's at least one valid data point. Parts are WAY expensive. Downtime is significant. Just the other day, the flaps failed to retract on a go around, and the plane would barely climb for me...needed new servos. Buyer beware!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

@flyingcheesehead, thanks for the info. Would you characterize the DA40 to be more gentle than say a 172 in turbulence? As for the fit and finish, a few folks mentioned that the seats are poorly cushioned and some folks had to use extra cushion for long trips. I really like the DA40 and it's a G1000 plateform.

Yes, it rides better than a 172 (172 only has ~14 lb/sqft wing loading). But it's different than most planes, it's kinda something you'll probably have to experience to know what I mean. I feel like you hit more bumps but they're gentler and sometimes you'll just rock gently instead of the type of turbulence you're accustomed to in most spam cans.

The seats aren't particularly comfortable, but that's because they're built to withstand 26 G's. Same with Cirrus seats, though I haven't flown the long distances in the Cirrus that I have in the Diamond so I can't compare them accurately. A cushion isn't a bad idea, but I've found that I can do 3-hour legs in it OK and I'm 300 pounds with no ass so I'm not particularly comfortable in much of anything.

I do think the DA40 has some of the most delightful flight characteristics of any airplane. I've flown planes that are more stable, I've flown planes that are more "fun" (i.e. unstable like an Extra 300L - Whee!) and I think the DA40's control harmony and near-perfect balance of stability and fun makes it the nicest-flying certified plane I've ever flown. The only plane that edges it out, IMO, is the P-51 Mustang, and that's gonna cost ya an awful lot more.

 

[PaulS]

Not really 0 mph vs 50 mph. If you figure out the resultant vector it is sqrt(50*50+50*50) which is 71 mph vs 50 mph.

But having said that, yes I would rather be crashing in a Cirrus and a parachute versus a dainty DA40

So the kinetic energy that must be dissipated is a function of the square of the velocity, therefore roughly twice the amount of energy must be dissipated from a 70 mph impact versus a 50 mph impact, the chute still sounds much better to me in this instance......

 

[flyingcheesehead]

So the kinetic energy that must be dissipated is a function of the square of the velocity, therefore roughly twice the amount of energy must be dissipated from a 70 mph impact versus a 50 mph impact, the chute still sounds much better to me in this instance......

Only if you make the assumption that there is zero horizontal area available - IE, the DA40 is going to have to drop into a box the size of the airplane with brick walls on all sides.

A Cirrus SR20 under a chute will have only the height of the landing gear to dissipate all its energy. While the DA40 will be going faster horizontally, if there is any horizontal area available (IE a field that's too small to land in and come to a stop but still larger than the airplane), you can flare the DA40 and slow it down some before you hit the trees/fence/whatever is at the other end of the field. And you won't have the spinal compression problem either.

IMO, the chute is good for only a few things: Pilot incapacitation, mid-air collision, control failure. I'd only pop it in the event of an engine failure if I was over very rugged terrain at night, or if it was clear that a dead-stick landing was going to cause serious injury.

 

[PaulS]

Only if you make the assumption that there is zero horizontal area available - IE, the DA40 is going to have to drop into a box the size of the airplane with brick walls on all sides.

A Cirrus SR20 under a chute will have only the height of the landing gear to dissipate all its energy. While the DA40 will be going faster horizontally, if there is any horizontal area available (IE a field that's too small to land in and come to a stop but still larger than the airplane), you can flare the DA40 and slow it down some before you hit the trees/fence/whatever is at the other end of the field. And you won't have the spinal compression problem either.

IMO, the chute is good for only a few things: Pilot incapacitation, mid-air collision, control failure. I'd only pop it in the event of an engine failure if I was over very rugged terrain at night, or if it was clear that a dead-stick landing was going to cause serious injury.

From the example, vertical energy is a wash, both are close to the same, the Cirrus has the structure designed specifically to absorb the impact, not so sure about the about the diamond which could be huge factor in injury. The difference lies in the forward momentum, hence energy, that has to dissipate. It's a crap shoot as to whether you hit something or not, but that is still a lot of energy to deal with. And again, you have twice the energy to dissipate. Out of the two scenarios, I would prefer the chute.

That doesn't mean I don't like Diamonds, I think they are cool aircraft.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

From the example, vertical energy is a wash, both are close to the same, the Cirrus has the structure designed specifically to absorb the impact, not so sure about the about the diamond which could be huge factor in injury. The difference lies in the forward momentum, hence energy, that has to dissipate. It's a crap shoot as to whether you hit something or not, but that is still a lot of energy to deal with. And again, you have twice the energy to dissipate. Out of the two scenarios, I would prefer the chute.

What I'm getting at is that you can flare the Diamond so that the vertical component becomes near zero. If you're under a chute, you're going all the way to impact at 1500 fpm.

That doesn't mean I don't like Diamonds, I think they are cool aircraft.

Wait, we're still talking about airplanes? I thought we were talking about physics.

Cirri are fine aircraft, the problem is that they DO have problems, but they're marketed hard and they trash every other kind of airplane in their marketing. So, when some of us who own/fly some of those "other" airplanes point out where the Cirrus marketing folks may not be correct, discussions and sometimes arguments ensue.

 

[PaulS]

What I'm getting at is that you can flare the Diamond so that the vertical component becomes near zero. If you're under a chute, you're going all the way to impact at 1500 fpm.



Wait, we're still talking about airplanes? I thought we were talking about physics.

Cirri are fine aircraft, the problem is that they DO have problems, but they're marketed hard and they trash every other kind of airplane in their marketing. So, when some of us who own/fly some of those "other" airplanes point out where the Cirrus marketing folks may not be correct, discussions and sometimes arguments ensue.

Ok, I see what you are saying, although in the 50/50 scenario there would be no energy left to flare. But then again, I doubt anyone would use that technique in an actual emergency anyway as what you describe makes more sense.

One of these days I am going to try flying both as a sit here and contemplate about flying again someday.

 

[peppy]

IMO, the chute is good for only a few things: Pilot incapacitation, mid-air collision, control failure. I'd only pop it in the event of an engine failure if I was over very rugged terrain at night, or if it was clear that a dead-stick landing was going to cause serious injury.

What if it wasn't clear that the dead stick landing would cause injury? That leaves the majority of the cases which involve you probably being ok but not certain. I am thinking of a Cirrus pilot known for being dismissive of the chute. He had an engine out but with plenty of altitude so he chose what looked like a good spot and put the plane down. The plane flipped and he and his wife were killed. The record coming down under canopy is excellent. For example, what if you are 99% sure you will be ok coming down under canopy but there is a 10% chance of serious injury or death if you do an off airport landing? Which would you choose?

Landing energy scenarios are interesting but are sometimes apples and oranges. A bush plane that can land in a very small space and at a very low airspeed has a huge advantage over a plane that stalls at 60 knots but it usually cruises a lot slower too. Now a plane that cruises at 170 knots but can be configured to land at 10 knots would have a greatly increased chance of the passengers surviving an off airport landing. Unfortunately, stall speed usually goes up as cruise gets higher.

 

[Jaybird180]

What if it wasn't clear that the dead stick landing would cause injury? That leaves the majority of the cases which involve you probably being ok but not certain. I am thinking of a Cirrus pilot known for being dismissive of the chute. He had an engine out but with plenty of altitude so he chose what looked like a good spot and put the plane down. The plane flipped and he and his wife were killed. The record coming down under canopy is excellent. For example, what if you are 99% sure you will be ok coming down under canopy but there is a 10% chance of serious injury or death if you do an off airport landing? Which would you choose?

Landing energy scenarios are interesting but are sometimes apples and oranges. A bush plane that can land in a very small space and at a very low airspeed has a huge advantage over a plane that stalls at 60 knots but it usually cruises a lot slower too. Now a plane that cruises at 170 knots but can be configured to land at 10 knots would have a greatly increased chance of the passengers surviving an off airport landing. Unfortunately, stall speed usually goes up as cruise gets higher.

Do you have a reference for that?

 

[peppy]

Do you have a reference for that?

As far as his attitude that comes from his partner in the plane as reported on the COPA website. The crash is here:

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20110723X80555&key=1

From eyewitnesses:

Witnesses thought the airplane was trying to make an emergency landing when its engine failed.

The plane hit diagonally, with its right wingtip striking the ground first, then its nose.

At impact, the engine was sheared off, and the plane tumbled end over end. Dirt and smoke shot into the air a mile south of J.A. Bombardier Boulevard and Sapodilla Road.​

 

[flyingcheesehead]

As far as his attitude that comes from his partner in the plane as reported on the COPA website. The crash is here:

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20110723X80555&key=1

From eyewitnesses:

Witnesses thought the airplane was trying to make an emergency landing when its engine failed.

The plane hit diagonally, with its right wingtip striking the ground first, then its nose.

At impact, the engine was sheared off, and the plane tumbled end over end. Dirt and smoke shot into the air a mile south of J.A. Bombardier Boulevard and Sapodilla Road.​

That still wouldn't make me go to the chute as my first option. If you're gonna try to land it, you can't F up the landing. If you hit right wingtip first on a runway with the engine running you have a pretty good chance of dying too.

 

[Jaybird180]

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20110723X80555&key=1

...According to GPS and other recorded flight data, about 17 minutes after takeoff, the oil pressure decreased below the lower end of the normal operating range; at the time, the airplane was flying in an easterly direction about 10 nautical miles west of an airport with runways of more-than-adequate length for the pilot to divert. Rather than divert, the pilot continued toward the destination. Although the oil temperature remained in the normal operating range, the oil pressure continued to decrease. Both indications would have been available to the pilot either on the multifunction display or on the analog combination oil pressure/oil temperature gauge.

...
The pilot’s decision to continue the flight with decreasing or low oil pressure rather than land at a suitable airport nearby and his continued operation of the engine at a high rpm setting contradicted the emergency procedures section of the pilot operating handbook and Federal Aviation Administration-approved flight manual, which contributed to the catastrophic failure of the engine.

Are Cirri POHs radically different from other POHs in that a decreasing pressure gauge with stable temperature simply indicating to the pilot the possibility of a malfunctioning gauge? Or was it the "high rpm setting" that was in contradiction?

 

[peppy]

Are Cirri POHs radically different from other POHs in that a decreasing pressure gauge with stable temperature simply indicating to the pilot the possibility of a malfunctioning gauge? Or was it the "high rpm setting" that was in contradiction?

From the POH:


Low Oil Pressure
If low oil pressure is accompanied by a rise in oil temperature, the
engine has probably lost a significant amount of its oil and engine
failure may be imminent. Immediately reduce engine power to idle and
select a suitable forced landing field.
WARNING
Prolonged use of high power settings after loss of oil pressure
will lead to engine mechanical damage and total engine
failure, which could be catastrophic.
Full power should only be used following a loss of oil pressure
when operating close to the ground and only for the time
necessary to climb to an altitude permitting a safe landing or
analysis of the low oil pressure indication to confirm oil
pressure has actually been lost.
If low oil pressure is accompanied by normal oil temperature, it
is possible that the oil pressure sensor, gage, or relief valve is
malfunctioning. In any case, land as soon as practical and
determine cause.
1. Power Lever ................................................MINIMUM REQUIRED
2. Land as soon as possible.

 

[Jaybird180]

From the POH:


Low Oil Pressure
If low oil pressure is accompanied by a rise in oil temperature, the
engine has probably lost a significant amount of its oil and engine
failure may be imminent. Immediately reduce engine power to idle and
select a suitable forced landing field.
WARNING
Prolonged use of high power settings after loss of oil pressure
will lead to engine mechanical damage and total engine
failure, which could be catastrophic.
Full power should only be used following a loss of oil pressure
when operating close to the ground and only for the time
necessary to climb to an altitude permitting a safe landing or
analysis of the low oil pressure indication to confirm oil
pressure has actually been lost.
If low oil pressure is accompanied by normal oil temperature, it
is possible that the oil pressure sensor, gage, or relief valve is
malfunctioning. In any case, land as soon as practical and
determine cause.
1. Power Lever ................................................MINIMUM REQUIRED
2. Land as soon as possible.

There's that phrase again....

In hindsight he made a bad call. My point is that characterizing the pilot as having a bad attitude and the NTSBs poor judgement sentiment may be overly harsh. IMO He followed the POH within the bounds of PIC discretion.

Too bad Cirrus confused the issue with a parting jab by mixing practical and possible.